Total topics: 65
P1. There is no possible world where the truthfulness of universals are falsified (i.e. no state of affairs where 2 plus 2 equals 9, or triangles have four sides)
P2. If universals are true across all possible worlds, they are not dependent on human cognition.
P3. If they are not dependent on human cognition, they are dependent on another cognition. Namely a universal cognition.
P4. A universal cognition that apprehends the truth value of all necessary propositions (universals) can apprehend the truth value of all particular and contigent propositions.
P5. Any mind that apprehends the truth value of all propositions is omniscient.
P6. An omniscient mind exists.
P7. Therefore God exists.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
If there are any Reformed folks on this forum, grace and peace. I usually don't spend too much time with in house discussions right now as I'm currently pursuing natural theology, however this topic is one I love pondering.
I had a very brief flirtation with Calvinism this past year, I ultimately didn't go down that path as I believe Molinism offers a superior solution to the classic questions of divine sovereignty and human freedom.
Here's my thoughts:
In Reformed theology God is absolutely and meticulously sovereign over His creation because nothing happens outside of His decree. If it happened it is because God decreed it.
In the Molinist paradigm however, God is still absolutely and meticulously sovereign over His creation, but not because nothing happens outside of His decree, but because He uses His middle knowledge to achieve His will and purposes through the free undetermined actions of His creatures.
Why is this important?
Well in the Reformed schematic, I don't see how determinism can be affirmed without sourcing the origin of sinful acts in God.
In the Molinist schematic, God can perfectly enact and accomplish His will through completely free creatures.
In other words, under Molinism God doesn't have to play the chess pieces on the board (i.e. decree everything they will do). He can let each piece move freely themselves on their own while still getting His will accomplished. This seems like a superior understanding of God.
Any thoughts?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
What if god directly contacted you and proved they were god but told you that the only way you can stay in touch and experience your privileges (which may include getting into the heaven) is if you never talked about the god to others and kept it a secret, perhaps even masquerading as an atheist or at least agnostic?
Would you lie to everyone you knew?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
The modal ontological argument as developed by philosopher Alvin Plantinga:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being* (mgb for short) exists.
2. An mgb exists in some possible world.
3. If an mgb exists in one possible world, then an mgb exists in all possible worlds.
4. An mgb exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore God exists.
*for our purposes an mgb is defined as a being that possesses all great making properties, and lacks no great making property.
Out of all the classical theistic arguments, this one is my personal favorite. Albeit, somewhat paradoxically, although I believe it to be a sound proof , it seems to be the less convincing for many people.
I realize each premise needs expounding, hence the reason I started the thread. This thread is open for discussion to anyone. Atheists are welcomed and encouraged to comment.
Thank you
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
A mandated reporter is a person who is legally required to report any suspicion of child abuse or neglect to the relevant authorities. Teachers and psychologists are some examples of people that are required to report any known abuse. The laws are in place to prevent children from being abused and to end any possible abuse or neglect at the earliest possible stage.
Historically, American law has protected a clergy-penitent privilege for a religious confessional that is similar to attorney-client privilege. In other words, clergy are not required to tell anyone about any abuse or rape they know about. Only seven states have laws requiring priests to report this information.
Catholic priests are not the only people who hear people's confession in religious contexts. Scientology uses a process known as auditing which allegedly helps people "rid themselves of their spiritual disabilities." Like priests they are exempt from having to report any abuse they've learned about in a confession or similar process, and do not have to provide testimony in a court of law.
A lot of people have come forward to report their experience of sexual abuse within all kinds of religious institutions. Many times people in the church know what is going on, but do nothing to stop it. A bill that started making its way through the California legislature last year would have made CA the first since 1999 to require priests to choose between violating the law or violating the seal of the confessional.
As predicted, virtually every religious institution fought back and the law was withdrawn. One bishop argued, "If any legislature can force believers to reveal their innermost thoughts and feelings shared with God in confession, then truly there is no area of human life that is free or safe from government. Another added, "Surely murder, theft, spousal abuse, child neglect and rape are terrible crimes. Would the state determine that priests are obligated to report these offenses to the authorities, should they hear of them in the confessional?"
Um... sure, why not?
The argument is that forcing individuals to choose between the most sacrosanct part of their religious beliefs and imprisonment is what the Bill of Rights was entirely meant to avoid. Do you agree, and if so do you agree to the point where that applies to clergy and confessionals from ALL religious denominations? For instance, if I said I shouldn't have to report child molestation that I know is occurring because of my devout Pastafarianism and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would that be acceptable? And if you don't agree, explain why you think the 1st amendment does not apply to rape or child abuse.
(Posting in the Religion forum to see if perspectives differ from the Politics forum.)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
A mandated reporter is a person who is legally required to report any suspicion of child abuse or neglect to the relevant authorities. Teachers and psychologists are some examples of people that are required to report any known abuse. The laws are in place to prevent children from being abused and to end any possible abuse or neglect at the earliest possible stage.
Historically, American law has protected a clergy-penitent privilege for a religious confessional that is similar to attorney-client privilege. In other words, clergy are not required to tell anyone about any abuse or rape they know about. Only seven states have laws requiring priests to report this information.
Catholic priests are not the only people who hear people's confession in religious contexts. Scientology uses a process known as auditing which allegedly helps people "rid themselves of their spiritual disabilities." Like priests they are exempt from having to report any abuse they've learned about in a confession or similar process, and do not have to provide testimony in a court of law.
A lot of people have come forward to report their experience of sexual abuse within all kinds of religious institutions. Many times people in the church know what is going on, but do nothing to stop it. A bill that started making its way through the California legislature last year would have made CA the first since 1999 to require priests to choose between violating the law or violating the seal of the confessional.
As predicted, virtually every religious institution fought back and the law was withdrawn. One bishop argued, "If any legislature can force believers to reveal their innermost thoughts and feelings shared with God in confession, then truly there is no area of human life that is free or safe from government. Another added, "Surely murder, theft, spousal abuse, child neglect and rape are terrible crimes. Would the state determine that priests are obligated to report these offenses to the authorities, should they hear of them in the confessional?"
Um... sure, why not?
The argument is that forcing individuals to choose between the most sacrosanct part of their religious beliefs and imprisonment is what the Bill of Rights was entirely meant to avoid. Do you agree, and if so do you agree to the point where that applies to clergy and confessionals from ALL religious denominations? For instance, if I said I shouldn't have to report child molestation that I know is occurring because of my devout Pastafarianism and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would that be acceptable? And if you don't agree, explain why you think the 1st amendment does not apply to rape or child abuse.
(Man I wish I could pose this question to Q-Anon.)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
All in the title. I've decided that if Jesus existed, he most likely resurrected.
But did Jesus exist at all? Is the whole thing myth, or is it history? Share.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
RELIGION POLL #3: Is Genesis Compatible With Science?
A couple of points I'd like to share. From a non-literalist perspective, many of the "days" in Genesis happened without the presence of a sun. That suggests to me that perhaps the time schemes are longer. Even If you were to come from a Biblical literalist perspective, in context, Genesis does not necessary make for full-fledged historical accuracy. At the time of Genesis' writings, no Jew would have a scientific background to understand concepts like evolution and the old earth. So it makes sense that God would present a simplified account that had some symbolic meanings.
But that is just my limited knowledge on the subject. Feel free to share your take.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I thought I'd discuss the Kalam a bit.. As this seems to be one of the most discussed arguments for the existence of God.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a (transcendent) cause.
Why do you agree or disagree with this argument?
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a (transcendent) cause.
Why do you agree or disagree with this argument?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
This edition of ERT we have a proud Christian known as Dr. Franklin.
He hasn't revealed much else in his application than that he is a devout Christian.
Please introduce yourself, Dr. Franklin!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Welcome one and all to the first interview of the show! It is none other than Mr. Eternal AKA EtrnlVw!
He says this of his beliefs:
At the very, very core of your being, you and God are one and the same (surprise), God is the Watcher of all your observations.
and it is to the very, very core of his beliefs that we wish to get!
He seems to believe that God is essentially the head of a complex web of heirarchy of conscious entities and within all, at the core of it all is God pulling the strings... Alternatively, is God the one inside going along the ride and we are the ones experiencing it for this entity?
We shall find out here on the Exploration of the Religious Thinker!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Welcome to the ERT, the place where we endeavour religious thoughts.
Today on the show, we have DPR [TheDredPriateRoberts] who identifies as Agnostic on his profile but seeks to not be labelled at all. It is important that we take note that he is unlabelled and non-theistic rather than a non-denominational Theist or Deist, so that we take into account that this individual doubts God's existence altogether.
Doubting doesn't just mean lacking conviction and that is something we certainly wish to prove on this show.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Welcome, one and all, to the ERT!
Today, on our show, we have someone who isn't religious but who wishes to speak on religion, he's an agnostic and an atheist (which he refers to as agnostic atheism) who goes by the name Press.
Since he has left very little in terms of his beliefs or thoughts on reality, it would be best to let him introduce himself and his stance.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
As just a small thought experiment, I'd thought I'd let any non Christian in this forum give their personal biggest objection to Christianity, and I will try to go about answering it. There are a few rules however.
1. Two objective per person. No more. You can do one as well, but two is the limit. If this thread doesn't become all that popular I may revisit some original posters and have them give more.
2. Be specific. Overly vague objections like "religion is false" or "God doesn't exist" aren't really going to be helpful. Try to articulate any objections in a meaningful way.
Any Christians in the thread feel free to give your own answer.
I will try my best to offer a reasonable response to the objections raised. That doesn't mean I will have an answer right away
Hopefully we have fun and all learn something. Let's have at it.
1. Two objective per person. No more. You can do one as well, but two is the limit. If this thread doesn't become all that popular I may revisit some original posters and have them give more.
2. Be specific. Overly vague objections like "religion is false" or "God doesn't exist" aren't really going to be helpful. Try to articulate any objections in a meaningful way.
Any Christians in the thread feel free to give your own answer.
I will try my best to offer a reasonable response to the objections raised. That doesn't mean I will have an answer right away
Hopefully we have fun and all learn something. Let's have at it.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Or are religious people deluded to start with?
If we look at the first question, we would need to consider the effect religion has on followers.
For example, followers are required to believe in an entity that is invisible, silent and completely unproven.
Also, the fundamental principals of religions state that humans have a "soul". Again there is not one piece of evidence to support such a concept and the word soul is normally used as a metaphor.
To this extent, could we say that religion influences or even, forces followers to become deluded.
It could be that religious followers are deluded regardless of religion and find themselves attracted to the abstract, nature of believing in an unknown, contrived entity. For example, comprehensive research and authoritative studies have concluded:
"The God gene hypothesis proposes that human spirituality is influenced by heredity and that a specific gene, called vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2), predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences."
Could the delusion in some religious followers be due to both factors, i.e., hereditary and conditional? In which case would some religious followers be more deluded than others
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion